the old orthodox marxist position on Britain was that the Labour Party was structurally a working-class party (largely on the basis of trade union affiliation) and that was true irrespective of their actual policy positions.

I suppose that main condition still holds sufficiently for some

fun reward for getting relegated, you're instant favourite to win a trophy

I mean they could also encounter the same ideas listening to ... their Labour Government

yeah, as far as I can tell previous writers would just drop a Bond into a setting, establish whatever context they wanted to and assume the viewer understood this was not actually a continuous storyline just a role being interpreted

The first Daniel Craig movie starts with him getting his 00 status!

"How can James Bond come back from the dead?" is up there with "How can we explain why Maggie Simpson is still a baby?" as a writing problem.

Honestly the glee about the threat to sue in the right-wing newspaper headlines this morning was absolutely deranged and any halfway competent politician could turn that back at them quite easily

People don't like Trump! People quite like it when you stand up to authoritarian foreign governments! It's actually quite difficult for conservatives to take sides against the UK and for Donald Trump if you make them say it out loud!

(me, personally, I *still* think it's most useful to talk about your (main life-long) occupation(s), relationship to the means of production and personal wealth)

Broadly, when you find a Brit telling you something/someone is middle class they could mean fucking anything.

The important translation info for an American: Generally, they do not generally mean "ordinary joe", they are identifying someone of some limited privilege (economic/cultural/political)

None of this has much to do with the lived reality of social class, you'll see people declare all sorts of ludicrous stuff to be "classed" (croissants! falafel! cappuccino!) and weird ideas about occupation that seem to be moored certainly in another time, perhaps in another dimension entirely

so you can acquire ordinariness, authenticity and working-classness by being broadly hostile to out-groups (immigrants, muslims, queer folk etc.) and lose it by being sympathetic to them.

grafted on top of this is media discourse that has been desperate for decades to present all the most reactionary opinions as being the most authentic (and therefore most working class ones) - so basically establishes "being a horrible closed-minded bastard" as a class test

they'll put the aristocracy at the top, they'll have binaries between "ordinary folk" and "the rich", multiple class fractions, stuff about "the poor", "the middle" and "the rich", no class structure at all just individuals, pretty anything you can imagine

But actually, for as long as sociologists have been asking, they found lots of people have completely idiosyncratic social imaginaries and will say all sorts of stuff about the social structure they think they live in.

Most technical version was that it meant the petit bourgeoisie and credentialed professionals

Least complicated version (20th century) is that it identified people who were neither manual workers nor the actual ruling class (with fuzzy boundaries where you found low-status white-collar workers and upper levels of middle management)